Blameworthy Puns

Say a person owns slaves but for whatever reason truly believes that owning a certain race of people as slaves is morally right/neutral, does this make their action morally blameworthy or is it excusable?

To be more specific let's say that the belief in the moral rightness/neutrality is not based on any mistaken belief about the slaves and their nature or any other mistaken belief about reality. Is the action blameworthy or excusable?

Thanks

I agree with most people on the political subreddits that Israel is obviously blameworthy in many aspects: they rule over the Palestinians with an iron fist, unjustly killing and jailing people and not punishing many soldiers who commit atrocities; they keep illegally building on Palestinian land while refusing most Palestinian building permits; they keep making larger and larger demands in negotiations while at the same time accusing the Palestinians of negotiating in bad faith; and so on.

But at the same time, that does not absolve the more extreme Palestinian groups - represented by such groups as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PFLP - who explicitly do not want to negotiate at all. Their aim is not co-existence or justice, but an irredentist vision in which the only way to make up for the expulsions and plight endured by the Palestinians is to inflict them tenfold on the Israelis. They seek to expel millions of Israelis who have no other home to return exclusive control over all of Israel proper, and they see any man, woman, and child living in Israel as valid targets.

As long as such groups continue to hold power and receive solidarity from the Palestinian people, the Israeli right wing becomes stronger and peace is less and less likely. The reason is simple: from the experiences of the Second Intifada to the three wars and counting with Hamas, Israelis have come to believe that if they let down their defenses and give Palestinians more freedom, the result will be terror and bloodshed.

On making this point, I've had three kinds of responses on Reddit, all of which I consider based on fallacies:

1. "Hamas and the other groups are just extremists and don't represent the Palestinian people. The Palestinians are peaceful and just want equality!" Besides the fact that Hamas was elected in Gaza with majority support, these claims are belied by polls showing that a considerable fraction of the Palestinians (25%) support expelling or subjugating the Israelis, similar to the fraction of Israelis (23%) who support expelling or subjugating the Palestinians. There are also more recent polls showing Hamas can win another election if it was held today, which suggests that a withdrawal from the West Bank may result in Hamas taking power there as well. Finally, in street interviews ([1](https://www.

Dr. Ibn Tamīm ad Dhāhirī حفظه الله said:

“... It is the blind imitator (Muqallid) that is worthy of blame and criticism and not worthy of being followed...”

I posted something like this as more of a rant in the unpopular opinion sub, and boy was it unpopular.

Though it was fun to rant and get outraged there, I want to have a more productive exchange about this, so I'm straightening out the argument and want to hear what people have to say. So here goes:

The situation at the US southern border is a humanitarian crisis. Without going into the political sides on that issue, what got me thinking about it was an article posted on /politics about the camps being de-facto concentration camps. And both people on the left and the right agree that whatever is going on is bad.

So I want to think about two things: The causes of the problem, and the responsibility for the problem. And right off the bad, I will completely grant that US laws and policies are a big causal contribution, and that whoever is responsible for the laws and policies (government officials, government leaders, the president, legislators, the voters that voted for them, the PACs and donors that helped get them elected etc.) is properly blamed and responsible for the results. I do not want to discuss how to divvy up the blame among anyone in that group. I also have no problem agreeing that the war on drug and US foreign policy bears significant blame for situation. (For an partisan-ish take on this I'll grant for the sake of the argument, see this Vice article: The Violence Central American Migrants Are Fleeing Was Stoked by the US, Vice News, June 28, 2018)

None of this contradicts the other clear fact that drug trafficking is what sustains the situation, and now that the US is no longer funding rebel forces, it is the cash from drug trafficking that keeps the Cartels and gangs in business and in power.

> In a number of Central American countries, crime is the paramount public policy issue, deciding elections and changing the relationship between the people and their government.^3 The crime problem in this region has been well researched, including recent work by UNDP^4 and the World Bank,^5 as well as previous UNODC assessments on Central America (2007)^6 and the Caribbean (2007, with the World Bank).^7 There is no need to duplicate this work, so the present study will focus on what is widely recognized to be the central threat confronting the region today:

>* the flow of cocaine,

• t

Sorry, I know nothing about The So-Called Church and I am trying to dig up as much dirt on the church as possible for my book.

Let me elaborate.

For example, let's say you're a white person living in the Jim Crow era South. You honestly believe that black people are subhuman, dangerous, and/or the source of many problems. You were raised into that mentality by your family and friends. If you mistreat black people, are you blameworthy for your misdeeds?

We know it's bad. Racism is wrong and founded on incorrect principles. It should be eliminated. But to the Jim Crow era white person, it's the worldview that they were raised into. They're ignorant of the knowledge that racism is founded on incorrect principles. They're ignorant of the equality of the races (which are just a social invention). If the white person is ignorant of all this, then it might seem like the morally permissible/right thing to scare black people out of town. So can we blame them?

Likewise, if I'm a crazy person who genuinely believes that my boss is trying to kill me, am I blameworthy in killing him in self-defense?

Likewise, misogyny is prevalent throughout all of history. We know now that the sexes are equal, but can we blame past people for being misogynists?

Have we heard ANY respected football analyst put the blame for our defensive situation squarely on Jim O’Neil? IMO the grade I would assign to O’Neil for this season is an INCOMPLETE. I cannot imagine a defensive coach who might have done a better job with these players. I’m not even factoring in injuries yet, because by week 3 we all knew what was up. Thrashings in Carolina and Seattle with Bowman and Armstrong “healthy”. (Side note: I don’t know about you but I don’t believe Bowman will ever be close to his form before his injuries). Arik A. is another injured starter who looked like he was being limited by that shoulder thing. The roster quality was very bad on the defensive side, and I don’t believe it’s right to blame a coach for not being able to turn water into wine! George Zimmerman had that Vikes defense stomping people, but even that roster petered out towards the end of the season.

I doubt O’Neil will survive after this season, but I think we should see what he can do with better and healthier players.

I was vet and asked for tp/lo n1. I wasn't baiting, I was just saving my alerts and thought this would be a good way to do it. No one else asked, so I asked.

n1 - I don't die and didn't get attacked. no alert

the next day town is trying to figure things out, but we have no leads. I ask for tp again since no one asked for it and jailor never revealed themselves.

n2 - I don't die and don't get attacked. no alert

The doc dies the next day they find one of the mafia who did it. They vote them up, but I innoed to finally find a bait. I was the only one to do so and just said, "oops, I thought they were vet." Town suspects me, but the tis already checked me out and there's no more tps. I didn't ask for anyone to be on me and hoped that this would make town look for others to investigate or heal. Like the confirmed spy.

n3 - I go on alert and kill the GF. A LO was on me and they unfortunately died too.

Through this I've been confirmed and ended up baiting maf

I end up winning the game with the spy. Jailor could have been alive, but when it was a final four between maf (who claimed spy), spy, me and jailor, they decided to jail me.

The LO who died decided to report me for gamethrowing, but I thought I played well as vet and baited properly to get gf to come to me.

Am I blameworthy for this and do I deserve to be reported?

Hello Lads,

i hope you read this.

I bumped into you two down at Catfish while playing solo in duo mode, double bounty.

Was lurking in the water and tried to close the distance to you, which u heard and called out by voice chat.

"In the Water"

Afterwards i decided i'd try to talk to you and well, it kinda surprised myself that it worked, even tough your buddhy seemed to get into an argument with you why you didnt kill me.

So i thought you went on doin your business, grabbed the clue and while still in the clue building i heard steps.

Coming nearer and nearer and then..

"Hello?"

Yh, its me, hi, standing in the entrance with my saber in hand.

There were other guys around, we defended you.

Nothing warmed my cold heart more than this words, even after months in the bayou.

You invited me to come and kill the butcher with you, which i thankfully agreed on.

Also you even allowed me the killshot and the banish and as the icing on the cake, even take one bounty.

So you suggested, that we go for the spider and as i already had two clues we could narrow her position down.

It had to be either Cyprus, Davant or Crematorium.

We went to the latter first, only to find out by surprise, one guy was lurking down in the boss lair.

I suggested that i trigger the iron door as a distraction.

You crazy guys pushed him trough the ramp and didnt tell me.

I only heard one death scream and asked if you got him.

A short "no" and the bounty lying on the ground proved my assumption wrong.

So i joined the only remaining buddy on the ramp only to see a crossbow bolt pouring into his chest.

He fell like it was in slow motion, his last cry seemed it never wanted to end.

The next bolt flew right besides my head and woke me up of my state of sorrow.

I ran like not even usain bolt ran before.

Up the ramp, circling around, questioning my choices.

Also ran out of DVB, well great.

I decided i would try the diplomatic way once more in this round and began to talk.

Told him coldsweatet that im a solo and that i found these two buddys down at catfish.

Also suggested to kill the spider together and share the bounty.

He only replied:

"Let me think about that."

I went into circle mode again, pretty scared that he would flank me, still debatting if i should have payed more attention to how they played this out.

Maybe i should have been there with them and pushed him with the other one when the first one bit in the ground.

But i wasn't, i wasn't and i felt and sti

I'm interested in knowing if anyone in moral philosophy has argued that someone carrying out the orders of Hitler, Mussolini, and others are as ethically culpable as these politicians even if they are foot soldiers of the lowest rank. They may argue the position that if a war is just, then your involvement in it is also just, and also follow the inverse that if the war is unjust then your involvement in it would also be unjust. The popular saying "support the troops, not the war" would essentially be rejected.

Calvinism has a double-standard with respect to human blameworthiness and praiseworthiness. In Calvinism, when humans sin, the human is 100% blameworthy for that sin, and God is 0% blameworthy. But when a human does a good thing, the human is 0% praiseworthy for that good thing, and God is 100% praiseworthy for it. This is inconsistent.

This is because in both cases, God is fully determining the person's circumstances, character and desires right up to the moment of choice. A specific example is regeneration. Presumably, repenting and accepting Jesus is a good thing for a person to do. But on Calvinism, the human is 0% responsible for it, and God is 100% responsible.

But it's not any different in principle than when God determines a person to do something bad. God determines that the human's character and desires change such that they now desire to repent, and the person repents.

One way of escape I've seen Calvinists try to use is the idea that when God determines a person to do evil, he merely "permits" them to act according to their evil nature, but when people do good things, that requires an act of God. But this doesn't do the job. Nothing exists apart from God's upholding power on Calvinism. So to speak of God permitting things is nonsensical. A person can only be said to permit something if they lack control over it.

For example, if I see a vase falling over because my dog hit it with his tail, then I could permit the vase to fall or I could grab it (suppose I am within reach to grab it before it hits the floor). Maybe I will permit the vase to fall and break because I never really liked that vase, or I like to see things explode into pieces, or I'm lazy, or whatever. It doesn't matter, the point is that it makes sense to speak of me permitting the vase to fall because of my lack of control over many variables. I didn't determine that my dog hit the vase, and I don't determine that gravity exists, and that the vase continues to exist with the material properties it possesses, and so forth.

Imagine if I did determine those things. If I determined that the dog hit the vase, and that gravity exist, and that the table was situated just as it is, and so on, it wouldn't make any sense to say that I "permit" the vase to fall. No, I would be in a more active and direct sense positively willing the vase to fall and break. So it is with God determining every meticulous detail of a person's circumstances, character, and desires which together entail any s

It seems that every so often, some misguided journalist/ethicist/commentator writes a news article tut-tutting at this subreddit for hurting anti-[COVID]-vaxxer feelings. This place has, among other things, been called "cruel," "heartless," and "ugly, and dismissed offhand as "ghoulish." Someone has even claimed that the existence of this subreddit is bringing society closer fascism. And that's some of the nicer coverage! Those on the right have never hesitated to condemn this place as "dancing on people's graves." Inevitably, during every outbreak of tut-tutting, disapproval, and finger-wagging, people on this subreddit become defensive.

#Why?

To those who get hysterical because I'm "dancing on people's graves," I do not believe I am dancing on anyone's grave because I refuse to view their life decisions with rose-tinted glasses. But even if I WERE dancing on people's graves, So. Fucking. What?

Nearly every time this subreddit gets outside attention, people always point out, “we do not want this subreddit to exist!” But I don’t count myself among those. I am indifferent to the existence of this subreddit, and generally do not concern myself with the question of whether it "should" exist or not. Moreover, that framing tacitly endorses the idea that this subreddit is blameworthy for even existing, and can be dismissed as a weak attempt to reconcile cognitive dissonance.

While I am unrepentant about my disregard for nearly all those who are featured here, there is one thing I can say with 100% certainty, and it is this: I don't want anyone to die. Specifically, I do not want anyone to needlessly die of a devastating disease when an effective, low-cost, and low-effort method of protection exists. To the anti-vaxxer who's reading this, THAT INCLUDES YOU. I may have nothing but the basest contempt for your actions and life choices, but even so, I do not want you to needlessly die. That is why I have now received two doses of an mRNA vaccine as well as a booster shot. It is why I nearly always keep my mask on in public places, and why I fully support vaccine and mask mandates where possible, so that children do not bring the virus home with t

I like to think. Maybe sometimes more than is good for me. But I think the way the dominant Christian traditions talk about sin is both inaccurate and highly toxic. By my reading both of the scriptures and the doctrine of original sin, sin is anything that interferes with a person’s relationship with God. So while every moral failing is a sin, not every sin is a moral failing. Indeed, not every sin is caused by or originates within the person to whom it attaches, and who must carry it as a burden. Seen this way, for example, ostracization from one’s faith community is a sin imposed on the individual by a faith community that is acting unjustly, and the expression of the moral failings of those within the faith community who immorally act to separate the individual from God. In this sense, crushing poverty can be a sin, institutional racism can be a sin, and so on, and people weighed down by sin are not morally culpable because of it. I hope that makes sense.

Anyway, is this understanding of sin helpful? Is it accurate? If so, how can we get more people to adopt it? I’m pretty good at theory, but I don’t understand people well enough to be good at praxis. Or am I just completely full of the poop?

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

I've been trying to figure out the relationship between blameworthiness and moral impermissibility. If I'm ignorant that what I'm doing is wrong, am I no longer blameworthy unless I should have known it was wrong? Is there any writing on this?

Calvinism has a double-standard with respect to human blameworthiness and praiseworthiness. In Calvinism, when humans sin, the human is 100% blameworthy for that sin, and God is 0% blameworthy. But when a human does a good thing, the human is 0% praiseworthy for that good thing, and God is 100% praiseworthy for it. This is inconsistent.

This is because in both cases, God is fully determining the person's circumstances, character and desires right up to the moment of choice. A specific example is regeneration. Presumably, repenting and accepting Jesus is a good thing for a person to do. But on Calvinism, the human is 0% responsible for it, and God is 100% responsible.

But it's not any different in principle than when God determines a person to do something bad. God determines that the human's character and desires change such that they now desire to repent, and the person repents.

One way of escape I've seen Calvinists try to use is the idea that when God determines a person to do evil, he merely "permits" them to act according to their evil nature, but when people do good things, that requires an act of God. But this doesn't do the job. Nothing exists apart from God's upholding power on Calvinism. So to speak of God permitting things is nonsensical. A person can only be said to permit something if they lack control over it.

For example, if I see a vase falling over because my dog hit it with his tail, then I could permit the vase to fall or I could grab it (suppose I am within reach to grab it before it hits the floor). Maybe I will permit the vase to fall and break because I never really liked that vase, or I like to see things explode into pieces, or I'm lazy, or whatever. It doesn't matter, the point is that it makes sense to speak of me permitting the vase to fall because of my lack of control over many variables. I didn't determine that my dog hit the vase, and I don't determine that gravity exist, and that the vase continue to exist with the material properties it possesses, and so forth.

Imagine if I did determine those things. If I determined that the dog hit the vase, and that gravity exist, and that the table was situated just as it is, and so on, it wouldn't make any sense to say that I "permit" the vase to fall. No, I would be in a more active and direct sense positively willing the vase to fall and break. So it is with God determining every meticulous detail of a person's circumstances, character, and desires which together entail an